Hill v. Smith
Citations
- 27 Cal. 476
Syllabus
<p>Form of Denial in Answer. — If an answer, in response to an allegation of the complaint, instead of denying it in express terms, contains the averment that the defendant did not commit the act charged, or that the fact alleged to exist does not exist, these averments of the answer traverse the matters alleged, and are good denials of the same.</p> <p>Proof of Mining for Gold.— Evidence that a party is at work on a claim, and is mining, and is at work with tools commonly used by miners, is sufficient to justify a jury in finding that he is mining for gold, without any proof that he has found any gold in the claim.</p> <p>Mining above the Head of a Ditch.—Where a ditch has been excavated from the bed of a stream, and its water has been diverted through the same for mining purposes, a miner has no right to work a claim located above its head after the ditch is dug, in such manner as to mingle mud and sediment with the water, and injure its value to the ditch owner for mining purposes, or to fill up the ditch and reservoirs with the same so as to lessen their capacity and increase the expense of cleaning them out.</p> <p>Same.—The fact that a miner, working a claim above the head of a ditch, conducts his mining operations in such a manner as to cause the least possible injury to the ditch and water flowing in the same, does not excuse his responsibility for injuries caused by working the same. It matters not how cautiously or carefully the miner works, for if the ditch owner is in fact injured, the miner is none the less liable. XJse of Water for Mining. — As between ditch owners and rhiners using the waters of a stream in the mineral region for mining purposes, the law does not tolerate any injury by one to the prior rights of the other.</p> <p>Common Law. — The reasons which constitute the groundwork of the rules of the common law touching water rights have not lost their governing force in the mineral regions of this State. The conditions to which we are called up
Judges: Sanderson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-04-26· cited 265×
- State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-02-09· cited 142×
- Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-02-03· cited 67×
- Courtwright v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court· 1866-10-15· cited 20×
- Fitzpatrick v. MontgomeryMontana Supreme Court· 1897-10-11· cited 15×
- Junkans v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-08-01· cited 10×
- Trambley v. LutermanNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1891-07-24· cited 9×
- Berríos v. GaráuSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1934-05-31· cited 7×
- Clark v. DillonNew York Court of Common Pleas· 1882-05-15· cited 3×
- Fajardo v. American RailroadSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1919-07-08· cited 3×
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-02-01
- Chamon v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-08-16
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.